Revealed: The Gang of Eight’s immigration plan

posted at 4:01 pm on April 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

Katrina Trinko has most of the particulars at the Corner. Quote: “One contentious issue among the senators is whether immigrants who are clearly part of gangs but who have no criminal record will be allowed to obtain legal status.”

Amnesty fever: Catch it.

Securing the border and ending illegal immigration. The gang has focused on the border with Mexico, and did not consider serious changes to the Canadian border. If the legislation passes, the Department of Homeland Security will be required to be able to surveil the entire border at all times (using technology, such as drones) and to be successfully catching nine out of ten people trying to cross the border. DHS will be given six months to come up with a plan to accomplish this, and then must issue a notice of commencement that they have begun to implement the enforcement policies. When five years have passed, DHS must be meeting these goals; if not, a commission will then devise additional policies that DHS will have to implement.

The legislation will also mandate universal E-Verify, which all employers, including small businesses, will have to use…

Illegal immigrants will be able to apply for legal status when DHS issues the notice of commencement, indicating that it’s begun implementing its enforcement policies. Then, after ten years have passed and there is proof that the border-security measures have been successfully implemented, the relevant immigrants will be permitted to apply for green cards. They could then in turn apply for citizenship after the normal three-to-five-year period that follows getting a green card. While in theory illegal immigrants could become citizens in 13 to 15 years, bureaucratic delays make it unlikely that the process will take less than two decades.

An evergreen problem with scrutinizing draft bills is that they’re destined to change. Amendments will be added and then, if this somehow survives a Senate vote, it’ll somehow have to be reconciled with the House’s plan to make it palatable to Republicans. With immigration, though, there’s a second phase of change: Even if it becomes law, there’ll be political pressure later to revisit and revise the bill to make it friendlier to illegals. Will the two-decade time frame for citizenship really hold once amnesty advocates start agitating against it, i.e. immediately? No one seriously believes that DHS will reach the point where they’re catching nine out of 10 illegals; they’re catching less than half at some crossing points right now, and they can’t even come up with a way to quantify border security. Surely leftists aren’t going to sit back and let the path to citizenship stay stuck in limbo while they’re waiting for border improvements. All of this is going to change, if not before the bill becomes law then after. The Democrats’ ace in the hole is 2016: Even though Republicans are selling this as just the first step in a long-term project to win back some Latino voters, Republican voters who bite their lips about the bill will want results sooner rather than later. All Schumer has to do is come back two years from now and demand that the security and citizenship provisions be softened because they’re proving too burdensome in practice and the GOP will go wobbly lest their hard-earned immigration “outreach” to Latinos be threatened.

In fact, the “outreach” may already be threatened. Per Trinko, to qualify for legalization, an illegal will have to have been here for two years. Anyone who hasn’t is subject to deportation. If an illegal is legalized but then loses his job and remains unemployed for more than six months, he’s subject to deportation. If he needs federal assistance because he’s no longer self-sufficient, he’s subject to deportation. And no illegals will be allowed to qualify for ObamaCare, at least until they’ve got a green card five to 10 years from now. All of this is fertile soil for Democratic demagoguery and for another wobbly GOP reaction. Conn Carroll sees it coming:

If I’m Schumer or Obama, I’m happy to accept a bill with the provisions described by Trinko. Even though it’s tougher than I want, there’s a valuable trade-off — the harsher provisions can be used as a weapon against the GOP in midterms next year. Border hawks have been arguing among themselves for weeks over whether Obama really wants the bill to pass so that he can start illegals on the path to becoming Democratic voters or whether he wants it to fail so that he can blame that on Republicans in 2014. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, though. Pass the bill now and take what Republicans will give, then start attacking the hawkish parts in hopes of winning back the House. Once you do, you can jettison the provisions you don’t like and pass a more liberal revised bill. Or, even if the GOP holds onto the House, you can apply the 2016 strategy I described above and get them to revise the bill for you. The fundamental problem with trying to get a good bill here is that Republicans have already showed their cards. They’re desperate to ingratiate themselves with Latino voters and they’ve decided that immigration is the best way to do it, even though virtually no one outside the caucus agrees with that. (A revamped economic agenda focusing on the middle class would help just as much and probably more.) They’re all but conceding that they have no leverage to produce a solid bill whose security provisions won’t end up breaking under political pressure sooner rather than later. All Democrats have to do is figure out how much political cover the GOP needs on the particulars to sell this to their base and they can sign off. For now.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Does anybody actually think that if DHS determined they were only stopping 89.9% of border crossings they would (1) admit it, and (2) proceed with rounding up/deporting all of these people who registered for legal status?!?!?!

I believe that strong evidence exists that IF YOU ENFORCE ALL THE EXISTING LAWS concerning employment, eligibility for benefits, eligibility for drivers licenses, etc., the illegals will self-deport.

The only additional law we need is a corrective measure to eliminate the “anchor baby” scam.

The “we can’t deport 12 million” argument is simply a “straw man” meant to avoid meaningful debate on real problems and real solutions. And don’t tell me that enforcement “doesn’t work” until it has actually been tried!!

I’m not angry at the politicians. May they all combust, for being politicians.

I’m angry with a stupid free people. I hope they get destroyed in full by the charlatans they elected, from the left to the right. Nothing short will do. Actions have consequences and the populace must be punished. They are this stupid, they deserve it.

If I’m Schumer or Obama, I’m happy to accept a bill with the provisions described by Trinko. Even though it’s tougher than I want, there’s a valuable trade-off — the harsher provisions can be used as a weapon against the GOP in midterms next year.

Not if Obama signs it! Then he will be responsible for getting new democratic voters when? In 2033! That will do them no good at all because all the white liberals will be ether dead or aborted by then. Minority voters alone cannot win elections in this country unless they all vote at a 90% clip in 2033 which they will not do. No political leader in America thinks that far in the future and if they do they don’t have clue one what things will be like 2033. We can barely pass budgets and continuations that last 4 weeks forget 20 years from now.

That is why I said this whole immigration debate was nothing but political theater and it still is. I could be wrong…I know…but all principle players in this thing have more to gain from failure than from passing a compromise bill. Both sides want to fire up their troops! Just like gay marriage, etc.

The electorate wants this. Why are you angry at these politicians? Aren’t they just doing what the nation wants?

happytobehere on April 10, 2013 at 4:11 PM

No. Polling consistently shows the public opposes legalization before new enforcement, by a huge margin (something like 65-25 in a Fox poll). Also, Pew found that only 43% support a path to citizenship.

haven’t seen a thing about the incentives that entice them here, especially birthright citizenship. Heck I have called Cornyn’s offices three weeks straight asking his position on that and no answer can be provided. That’s from his DC and Houston staff.

Illegal immigrants will be able to apply for legal status when DHS issues the notice of commencement, indicating that it’s begun implementing its enforcement policies.

I guess that’d be like the falsified numbers DHS/Obama issues about “how many deportations of illegal aliens” they’re “responsible for”.

They forge the numbers now, you can count on them forging more numbers later.

And Reagan’s ammesty was characterized by fraud. Even the govt. KNEW they were victimized by waves of fraud (fraudulent documents, newly ushered-in illegals claiming they’d been here for years, anything and everything presented as “proof” of them residing here, etc.) but admitted they could do little to nothing to stop it, so they allowed it in expectation that “it would eventually stop” while it never did or has.

The ONLY thing that is EVER going to make any difference as to this problem of illegal aliens in and remaining in the US is to persistently and consistently enforce the law, including deportation — despite the tears and sob stories.

The ONLY thing that will ever make a difference is persistent, consistent enforcement of our laws. Illegal aliens get deported. That will eventually get around in Central and South America and Asia and they’ll eventually stop expecting amnesty.

Aren’t you the same libtard saying that there isn’t a Liberal Media in another thread?

sentinelrules on April 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM

No, he’s just a massive cynic. His argument is that in spite of what shows up in opinion polls and such, the majority of the people support leftism 100% and to the hilt because they all voted for Obama.

haven’t seen a thing about the incentives that entice them here, especially birthright citizenship. Heck I have called Cornyn’s offices three weeks straight asking his position on that and no answer can be provided. That’s from his DC and Houston staff.

DanMan on April 10, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Yes, that, too: an end to “anchor baby citizenship”.

End that, end chain-migration and enforce existing laws with consistent deportations and that’ll solve most of our problems.

There’ll be complaints, there’ll be the expected Communist/Socialist groups yelling about “racism” (which it won’t be but that’s what they’ll say), but it’s the only thing that will make any psychological impact to the people who engage in illegal immigration — because they all expect amnesty or otherwise don’t think our laws are meaningful.

“One contentious issue among the senators is whether immigrants who are clearly part of gangs but who have no criminal record will be allowed to obtain legal status.”

LOL. These 8 treasonous weasels are members of the Gang of Eight – the most destructive gang in the land. They should be deported with all the illegals they represent … so they can be closer to their true constituents.

The electorate wants this. Why are you angry at these politicians? Aren’t they just doing what the nation wants?

happytobehere

If that were true, they wouldn’t be negotiating in secret while hoping to ram it through as quickly as possible with as little public discussion as possible so people don’t find out what’s going on until it’s too late. Heck, Obama would have passed it in his first term when dems controlled every branch of government. That way he and the dems could have taken all the credit, and never would have lost control in 2010….*IF* that’s what the nation really wants. But it isn’t. That’s why he and Schumer are orgasmic in disbelief over the fact that republicans are willing to give them cover on the issue now.

She called them “the wets.”
And Margaret Thatcher had no time for them.
What is a “wet” in British politics?

Thatcher biographer Hugo Young, author of The Iron Lady: A Biography of Margaret Thatcher, described the wets — and Margaret Thatcher’s scorn for them — this way. A wet was

“…a word epistomising the attitudes she most scorned, (and) it entered the mind and the vocabulary of Margaret Thatcher early in her time as party leader. Latently it was there long before.… It signified moderation, caution and the middle-minded approach to politics.… To be a wet was to be paternalistic… to be fearful of extreme measures…

There was also, Young notes, “an identifiable collection of men to whom it could aptly be applied.”

It is often noted that Margaret Thatcher’s political soul mate was Ronald Reagan.

With considerable reason.

There is no accident that Reagan had his own collection of “wets” to deal with in American politics. In America they were — and are — called “Republican moderates.”

Reagan had met Thatcher for the very first time thirty-eight years ago today — April 9, 1975. Thatcher was by then the newly elected Leader of the Opposition in Britain’s House of Commons — the British Conservative Party. She was elected, it should be remembered, because she took on the Conservative party leader of the day, former Prime Minister Edward Heath, a man she regarded as an incurable wet.

On that day in April, Reagan, only months out of office after two successful terms as Governor of California, was pondering a run for the 1976 Republican presidential nomination against then-President Gerald Ford. Reagan viewed Ford precisely as Thatcher had viewed Heath — as an American wet, a moderate Republican.

The meeting, in Thatcher’s office in the House of Commons, was scheduled to last forty-five minutes. It lasted an hour and a half. Years later, President Reagan would look back with fondness on that meeting, telling The Times (of London) correspondent Geoffrey Smith that “We found that we were really akin with regard to our views of government and economics and government’s place in people’s lives and that sort of thing.”

Does the proposal require disclosure of the SSN they used so the record can be scrubbed and the ID theft victim informed? This would also apply to unissued SSNs they may have used (to avoid child being “born into identity theft” when they are issued the number).

If they gave say Sandia Lab the lead on building and makeing a system to secure the borders, take what, 90 days to get some tech being tested, 6 months to up grade and in one year go operational and run the system as it is made better over time.

How is Rubio a traitor? U guys need to calm down a bit. Rubio isnt part of the gang of eight, and he will end up walking away. Then he will be able to say that he tried working with the Dems but they blew it. Relax!

Technology is great isn’t it? Wait per one of my progeny that is a technology geek for CBP it really doesn’t work out like they are advertising. Sure the camera(s), sensor(s) and drone(s) see someone crossing like advertised, provided the first two haven’t been shot up, but it still takes boots on the ground to apprehend them. Most of the time what the technology spots is long gone before boots arrive. Major stations on the Arizona border are Yuma, Nogales, Noco and Douglas with a few FOB’s interspersed.

Now if they will arm the drones and treat those crossing like the Mexican’s do on their southern border then that piece of technology would be useful.

How is Rubio a traitor? U guys need to calm down a bit. Rubio isnt part of the gang of eight, and he will end up walking away. Then he will be able to say that he tried working with the Dems but they blew it. Relax!

Jack_Burton on April 10, 2013 at 5:19 PM

O_o
He’s not? /////
Besides, you’re gonna have to pull IllogicalDiva off of him to get your Cuban man love.

I guess that’d be like the falsified numbers DHS/Obama issues about “how many deportations of illegal aliens” they’re “responsible for”.

They forge the numbers now, you can count on them forging more numbers later.

And Reagan’s ammesty was characterized by fraud. Even the govt. KNEW they were victimized by waves of fraud (fraudulent documents, newly ushered-in illegals claiming they’d been here for years, anything and everything presented as “proof” of them residing here, etc.) but admitted they could do little to nothing to stop it, so they allowed it in expectation that “it would eventually stop” while it never did or has.

Lourdes on April 10, 2013 at 4:31 PM

With the computers and printer quality that are commonly available now, printing up some “proof” like utility bills will be a snap. In fact I expect they will be applying with multiple names so they can get a benefits check under each one.

How is Rubio a traitor? U guys need to calm down a bit. Rubio isnt part of the gang of eight, and he will end up walking away. Then he will be able to say that he tried working with the Dems but they blew it. Relax!

Jack_Burton on April 10, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Oh please. For several months now, Rubio has been working directly with ‘Gang’ members Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein as well as Chuck Schumer – he helped write the ‘Gang’s’ AMNESTY bill – what makes you think that he is going to walk away? AND, even if he does, how is he going to claim that he “tried to work with” them, but “THEY blew it”, when THEY have a “bi-partisan” bill with Rubio’s DNA all over it? Rubio DID WORK with them and he helped them craft this dangerous bill – he knew exactly how this would turn out. The damage that Rubio has done to himself, the GOP, and America’s future is irreparable – he is TRAITOR in the truest sense.

Rubio isnt part of the gang of eight, and he will end up walking away. Then he will be able to say that he tried working with the Dems but they blew it. Relax

Jack_Burton

Pfft. That would be news to the gang of eight, including Rubio himself, who actually ran around from one talk show after another letting people know he was part of the gang of Amnesty eight.

Sheesh, if you can’t even get the most basic of facts right, how wrong are you on your other predictions? He will not be walking away from anything. Even if he does, it’s still going to pass, and it will be his fault in large part, because this issue likely wouldn’t have even come up if he hadn’t joined in. So yeah, he can try and walk away if he wants, but it’s too late now. He never should have gotten involved. And after getting elected by OPPOSING amnesty, yes, he can be considered a traitor.

It’s like people think we’re stupid or something. Rubio not part of the Gang of Eight? Can you believe anyone would even try to get that whopper by…well, anyone? Rubio was probably the first guy called after the Schumer-McCain-Graham reach around date to see if they could get this ball rolling.

Last week some folks were rightly shocked by a segment on WMAL radio when Dara Fox called into the show to describe rampant voter fraud on behalf of Democrats in the Lodge Precinct of Prince William County. During that segment Fox alleged numerous clear instances of faudulent voting, including multiple votes being cast by the same person, with the acquiescence and in some cases apparent collusion by election workers. I’ve confirmed with the Prince William County Republican Committee that Dara Fox was indeed an inside poll worker at Lodge Precinct and that the chaos of Romney’s poll monitoring program was entirely consistent with the report Dara Fox made.

This poll offers all 3 clear choices, including 2 specific bills in Congress at the time. If you challenge this poll, try to find a more current poll which also offers all 3 choices — bet you can’t find one, as they all offer multiple flavors of amnesty versus deportation, with no law enforcement choice.

You need to do some research on this “Gang of Eight”..I don’t think you have the correct members..:)

Dire Straits on April 10, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I listed Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein as GANG members, and Chuck Schumer separately as the ‘BIG’ democrats with whom Rubio has been working. This is accurate.

The Gang of Eight includes the leaders of each of the two parties from both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the chairs and ranking minority members of both the Senate Committee and House Committee for intelligence.

When offered ALL THREE CHOICES, most Americans agree on attrition through enforcement, NOT amnesty and not mass deportations.

READ THESE NUMBERS.

And watch and listen as this illegal alien in Georgia explains why that state’s tough new laws are making him go home with his family.

This poll offers all 3 clear choices, including 2 specific bills in Congress at the time. If you challenge this poll, try to find a more current poll which also offers all 3 choices — bet you can’t find one, as they all offer multiple flavors of amnesty versus deportation, with no law enforcement choice.

fred5678 on April 10, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Aye. The proggies have been riding the “we can’t deport 20 million Mexicans” strawman for decades. RINOs use it too.

If the legislation passes, the Department of Homeland Security will be required to be able to surveil the entire border at all times (using technology, such as drones) and to be successfully catching nine out of ten people trying to cross the border

Don’t doubt for a second Schumer et. al. haven’t thought this through:

But the question is what will Obama direct ICE to do with them once they’re caught? Answer: Set them free and give them amnesty of course! And further don’t doubt that 9/10 will be an easy bar to clear. They’ll start willingly surrendering themselves to border patrol for some sweet, sweet amnesty and entitlements. Way safer than trying to sneak around in a desert without food or water.